Is NATO Threatened by Diverging Priorities of its Members?

Robert Kagan’s thesis “Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus” was not based on transatlantic disagreements in the Bush era, but described developments that became already evident during the Clinton administration. The trend continues during the Obama presidency, even though Obama is often described as very “European.”

Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle insists on the removal of America’s last remaining nuclear weapons from German territory. At the Munich Security Conference, he called them “a relic of the Cold War. They no longer serve a military purpose.” According to Spiegel (in German) he also co-authored with his Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg counterparts a letter to NATO’s Secretary General suggesting that NATO needs to discuss how to come closer to creating a world free of nuclear weapons.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, however, stressed at the NATO Strategic Concept Seminar on Monday that the Alliance needs to “invest in deterrence, nuclear deterrence as well as missile defense” and expressed her concern about the current debate in Europe.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has long described European defense budgets and contributions to NATO as inadequate, without much repercussions in Europe, let alone significant change in policy. On Tuesday his criticism got more intense:

Right now, the alliance faces very serious, long-term, systemic problems. The NATO budgetary crisis is a case in point and a symptom of deeper problems with the way NATO perceives threats, formulates requirements, and prioritizes and allocates resources. (…)

The demilitarization of Europe – where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it – has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st. Not only can real or perceived weakness be a temptation to miscalculation and aggression, but, on a more basic level, the resulting funding and capability shortfalls make it difficult to operate and fight together to confront shared threats.

For many years, for example, we have been aware that NATO needs more cargo aircraft and more helicopters of all types – and yet we still don’t have these capabilities. And their absence is directly impacting operations in Afghanistan. Similarly, NATO requires more aerial refueling tankers and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms for immediate use on the battlefield.

NATO’s budget limitations do not just reflect a political, but also a “larger cultural trend“ in Europe, says Secretary Gates. Professor Andrew J. Bacevich of Boston University agrees with this assessment, but draws a different conclusion. While Gates urges Europe once again to do more for the US led NATO, Bacevich argues in the upcoming issue of Foreign Policy: “Let Europe Be Europe — Why the United States must withdraw from NATO“

By the dawn of this century, Europeans had long since lost their stomach for battle. The change was not simply political. It was profoundly cultural. The cradle of Western civilization — and incubator of ambitions that drenched the contemporary age in blood — had become thoroughly debellicized. (…) This pacification of Europe is quite likely to prove irreversible. Yet even if reigniting an affinity for war among the people of, say, Germany and France were possible, why would any sane person even try? Why not allow Europeans to busy themselves with their never-ending European unification project? It keeps them out of mischief. (…) So why not have the citizens of France and Germany guarantee the territorial integrity of Poland and Lithuania, instead of fruitlessly demanding that Europeans take on responsibilities on the other side of the world that they can’t and won’t?

What do you make of these statements?

Is NATO threatened by diverging priorities of its members? Is the Alliance drifting apart?

Are even more Americans moving to Mars and Europeans to Venus? Are Europeans thoroughly and irreversibly gone pacifist and unaware of the threats to their security? Or are Americans overreacting and putting too much faith in military solutions?

Has President Obama already given up on Europe, when he declined the invitation to the EU-US summit? Have transatlantic meetings degenerated to nice photo ops for European leaders and no longer serve as constructive meetings to decide on co-operations.

Should the United States withdraw from NATO, so that Europeans learn to take care of their own security?

Questions like this have been a recurring theme for the transatlantic partnership for decades. NATO was described as being in crisis even every now and then during the Cold War, and yet the most successful military alliance continues to be more active than ever around the world. Still it is worthwhile to reexamine transatlantic priorities in light of recent developments.

Joerg Wolf is founder and editor-in-chief of the Atlantic Review (http://atlanticreview.org), a blog on transatlantic relations sponsored by the German Fulbright Alumni Association.
He currently works as editor-in-chief of the Open Think Tank atlantic-community.org in Berlin.
Joerg studied political science at the Free University of Berlin and worked as a research associate for the International Risk Policy project at the Free University's Center for Transatlantic Foreign and Security Policy. He has been a Fulbright scholar at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and Washington DC and has worked for the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Cairo and in Berlin.

shannonlee

Ok, here we go again….

“Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle insists on the removal of America’s last remaining nuclear weapons from German territory.”

So, energy and nuclear power is a big deal right now in Germany. Westerwelle is correct in saying that there really is no need for nuclear weapons in Germany, but it is no accident that he is saying it now. This has nothing to do with NATO and everything to do with national politics.

Bacevich makes great points. I think he is pretty much on the money. And really, with a nuclear France and UK, why does the EU need to spend billions on their military. The EU is not interested in created a US style military empire.

To your questions, I would answer…

No. Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus….so I say…”Europe, you can't live with them, you can't live without them.” The relationship is fine. We are strengthening our non-military relationships with the EU every month. We don't have to kill together to understand each other.

The EU is aware of its threats…most of them internal. As I said before, they have nukes…and the UK will use them.

No. Obama did not attend the meeting because the EU leadership itself is a joke. It makes more sense to build individual relationships with the main leaders…which he has done.

Wow…what an arrogant question. You expose yourself here….neocon?

davidpsummers

I think this is correct. Outside of Europe, the EU is not going to help the US unless it is in its own interest (in which case they _might_ help, unless they think they can get the US to do it for them) and Europe can defend itself. The US can't count on NATO, thought has some utility still in organizing things, but its not really worth spending much effort or resources on. I don't see any problem in based some weapons in Europe if it doesn't cost to much and the Europeans are in favor of it. Otherwise, pull them out and let the Europeans devise their won strategy and live with….

shannonlee

The problem is that the US does not want to shrink its military empire. When we leave a country, we are releasing the control our presence in that country and region gives us. The US needs NATO because the US is a control freak. The EU doesn't really need NATO….they have no interest in the military control of others. Whether or not that is good or bad for national defense is debatable.

shannonlee

Oh fun…Mr Wolf is German….then he should know better. It also looks like he is involved in international security risk management services.